European UPC Patent Cases
2,007 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 67 · 2,007 total
BARCO NV v.YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
Infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827 before the Local Division Brussels. YEALINK filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. After the Court of Appeal confirmed the Brussels Local Division's territorial competence in a related cross-appeal, YEALINK withdrew its Preliminary Objection, and the Court closed the preliminary objection proceedings.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Mannheim, which had largely upheld bellissa's infringement claim regarding EP 2 223 589 and dismissed Windhager's revocation counterclaim. The court found that Windhager failed to demonstrate that the first instance decision contained obvious errors or that its interest in staying enforcement outweighed bellissa's interest in preventing patent infringement. The pending new revocation action before the Central Chamber Milan was deemed irrelevant at this stage.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. et al.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Innovative Sonic Corporation's appeal against an order of the President of the Local Division Munich that changed the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered, primarily those related to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the defendant.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants after Defendant 1 failed to lodge an objection within the prescribed time period, while Defendant 2's objection was considered on the merits. The court ordered both defendants to cease infringement, with additional information and penalty payment orders against Defendant 1.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Barco N.V.
This appeal concerned an Application for provisional measures brought by Barco N.V. against Yealink before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 732 827 relating to methods and systems for making functional devices available to meeting participants. The Local Division held it was competent but dismissed the Application for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear costs up to the ceiling of €112,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the dismissal but reduced the interim costs award to €66,000 (half the applicable ceiling) for both the Court of First Instance and appeal proceedings.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
Procedural order in patent infringement proceedings before the Local Division The Hague concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941 owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities. The court exercised its discretionary power under R.302.1 RoP to order the defendants to split their counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1526/2025), which concerned both patents, into two separate counterclaim actions—one per patent—due to procedural complexity, differing opposition stages at the EPO, and court fee considerations.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
Barco N.V., proprietor of European patent EP 3 732 827 concerning methods and systems for making functional devices available to meeting participants, sought provisional measures against Yealink before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement by Yealink's MeetingBar Products, WPP30, and RoomCast devices. The Local Division held it was competent but dismissed the application for lack of urgency and ordered Barco to bear costs up to the ceiling of €112,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the Local Division's findings but reduced the interim costs award to €66,000 for both the first instance and appeal proceedings, rejecting the cross-appeal.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co. et al.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European patent EP 2 787 541 (relating to solar cells), sued Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its Astronergy affiliates for allegedly infringing the patent through their 'ASTRO N' series n-type TOPCon solar modules sold in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and raised defenses including lack of standing, incomplete infringement allegations, validity challenges, and antitrust violations. The Local Division Munich found infringement, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in its entirety, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, recall and destruction orders, damages, and an interim award of costs against the defendants.
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns the consequences of the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (STRABAG) on the appeal lodged by its intervener (Chainzone) in a patent infringement case. The court held that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws its appeal following an out-of-court settlement, rendering the intervener's appeal moot. Chainzone's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to bear its own costs.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Vivo's request for a stay of first instance proceedings pending its appeal against orders of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Vivo's preliminary objections. The preliminary objections challenged the UPC's jurisdiction to determine FRAND license terms. The Court held that the unprecedented nature of the jurisdictional question and the costs of preparing a defence did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, and that Vivo's interest in avoiding costs did not outweigh Sun Patent Trust's interest in obtaining a decision without unnecessary delay.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Pari Pharma GmbH brought a revocation action against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning European Patent No. EP 3 397 329, titled 'Air-flow in a nebulizer head,' which was registered with unitary effect in Germany and France. The Court found that claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked novelty over prior art document WO 2017/102308 A1 (D1), but held that the amended claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 2 was inventive and valid. The revocation action was rejected insofar as the patent was maintained as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, with each party bearing their own costs.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI L.P, Open AI Opco LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
KEEEX SAS filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 949 070 against multiple defendants including Adobe, OpenAI entities, TruePic, JDFP, and C2PA. The defendants raised preliminary objections challenging the international jurisdiction of the UPC and, in the case of TruePic, the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that the claimant had sufficiently established the availability of the disputed digital tools on French territory and that UPC jurisdiction extended to non-UPC member states based on the ECJ's BSH ruling.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H.
This case concerns the withdrawal of an appeal by the main party (Strabag) following an out-of-court settlement with the opposing party (Swarco) in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 2 643 717, and the consequences for the appeal independently filed by the intervener (Chainzone). The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal and declared Chainzone's separate appeal moot under R. 360 of the Rules of Procedure, holding that an intervener cannot continue an appeal independently once the supported party withdraws from the proceedings.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al. v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
The defendants (Amazon entities) requested under Rule 115 RoP access to the audio recording of an oral hearing held on 14 November 2025 before the Local Division Mannheim, and permission to produce a complete transcript with the help of a professional transcriber for use in parallel US and UK proceedings. The court granted access to the audio recording at the premises of the Local Division Düsseldorf upon appointment, but rejected the request to produce a complete transcript, holding that Rule 115 RoP does not permit parties to create full transcripts for distribution outside UPC proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This is a correction order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on November 26, 2025, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The order amends address errors contained in a prior order of November 25, 2025, which had granted an application by Topsoe A/S for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The corrections relate to the registered office addresses of both respondents and the production facility address of SYPOX GmbH.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A. and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 666 697, which relates to antibodies targeting PCSK9 for lowering LDL cholesterol. The Court of First Instance (Munich central division) had revoked the patent, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision, finding that the claimed invention involves an inventive step and rejecting the respondents' requests to revoke the patent in its entirety.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, applied for an order of inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The applicant suspected that SYPOX's electrically heated biogas-to-hydrogen plants (SYPOX H-200 and SYPOX H-400) infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant the bailiff and expert unrestricted access to the allegedly infringing hydrogen production plants and related construction and operational documents.
Amgen Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis entities
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 3 666 697, which relates to antibodies targeting PCSK9 for therapeutic use. The Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's revocation decision, holding that the patent claims were valid. The court found that the invention involved an inventive step, as the skilled person starting from the prior art (Lagace) would not have developed antibodies targeting PCSK9 as a next step at the priority date, and ordered the respondents to pay Amgen's costs.
Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 and 27/2025), Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Appellant in 530/2024, 532/2024, 533/2024 and 27/2025 and Respondent in 464/2024, 457/2024, 458/2024 and 21/2025) v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno sought suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP to prevent enforcement of a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) issued by the Central Division (Paris Seat) ordering it to pay €350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft following a default judgment dismissing Suinno's infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal held that while the application was admissible, Suinno failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it had not shown the cost decision was manifestly erroneous. The application for suspensive effect was rejected.
Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Unified Patent Court decision.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action (UPC 829/2024) brought by UPM-Kymmene Oyj against International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The order, issued by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz following an interim conference on 21 November 2025, sets the value of the case at EUR 1,000,000, grants the Defendant time to clarify its requests, and confirms the date of the oral hearing for 15 January 2026 in Munich.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Revocation action concerning EP 4 019 790 B1, which relates to a nail for use in a nail gun made predominantly of lignocellulosic material. The claimant attacked claims 1-4 and 7-13 of the patent as granted for lack of novelty and inventive step, while leaving claims 5 and 6 unchallenged. The Court of First Instance partially revoked the patent, maintaining it only in the form of Auxiliary Request III with claims 5 and 6 unchanged as granted, and ordered costs to be borne 70% by the defendant and 30% by the claimant.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH & Others
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on a Rule 36 RoP application by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha seeking permission to submit further written pleadings in its infringement action concerning EP 3 686 683 B1 against Katun Germany GmbH and other Katun entities plus General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. The court permitted Canon to file the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and a summary of its reasoning, but rejected the request to introduce evidence from an additional test purchase conducted in October 2024, finding the submission unjustifiably delayed and essentially redundant. The written procedure was deemed closed upon expiry of the filing deadline.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano (Marciuliano Attrezzature)
The Unified Patent Court (Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division) issued a default judgment finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed European Patent EP 3691454 B1, which protects a method and apparatus for shaping pizza dough. The defendants, who had been served but failed to appear or file any defense, were ordered to cease manufacturing and distributing the infringing 'Pizza Former' machine, with additional remedies including destruction of infringing products, publication of the decision, and provisional damages.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. (Claimant) sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to submit a further written pleading in response to arguments raised by The Walt Disney Company and related entities (Defendants) in their rejoinder dated 20 October 2025 in the infringement action concerning EP 2 449 782. The Defendants did not oppose the request. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, permitting the Claimant to respond to the Defendants' non-infringement and FRAND-related arguments until 20 November 2025.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG
This case concerns the disclosure of an expert report obtained through an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent No. 3 212 356 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court ordered that pricing information and bank details in invoices be redacted from the expert report before disclosure to the patent holder, while the remainder of the report was to be disclosed. The court also lifted the confidentiality order for the non-redacted portions in relation to the applicant.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a disposable laparoscopic morcellator, filed an urgent application before the Düsseldorf Local Division for the preservation of evidence and inspection against Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. The application sought to inspect and analyze the Defendant's 'MORCELLIX' product being exhibited at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, which the Applicant suspected of being a slavish copy of its LiNA Xcise™ product. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and evidence preservation procedure to be carried out by an independent expert at the Defendant's exhibition booth, subject to confidentiality measures.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.